finance_capital_structure_cost_of_capital

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, what it modifies, or any side effects. The description is a generic routing instruction with no behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the tool name, but it is not necessarily concise in a helpful way—it wastes space on routing details that could be inferred from context. However, it does not include unnecessary fluff, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a finance domain action related to capital structure and cost of capital, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, output format, or what the action accomplishes. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged, and schema coverage is 0%. Very inadequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names: 'message' is 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' is 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. While this is slightly more informative than the schema alone, it lacks details on format, constraints, or expected usage, leaving agents with insufficient understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description merely states it routes to a domain agent action with the tool's name, but does not explain what the tool actually does (e.g., calculate capital structure metrics, analyze cost of capital). It fails to provide a specific verb and resource, and does not distinguish it from hundreds of sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Completely absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.